Thanks for raising it, nch! G., I remember you put out a proto-proposal to add new degrees related to law [0]. I would be honoured to get any degree for this, but it would be kind of fun for it to be a law degree.
[0] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg46799.html On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 00:16, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > It's the Herald's responsibility, but only enforced by a SHOULD. Our last > Herald did a disappearing act around when this was being resolved (I think e > may have announced intent to award just before e vanished). I just > deputised to pick up the tasks but haven't gotten to this one yet (on my > TODO!). But you're absolutely right it shouldn't disappear - maybe that > should be a SHALL. > > On 7/14/2019 4:24 PM, nch wrote: > > I haven't had a chance yet to properly review this document and recommend or > > critique it, but it strikes me that we should have a review system that > > makes this someone's responsibility so that the document doesn't disappear > > into limbo, and the writer either gets their reward or understands why they > > did not. > > > > On 6/4/19 8:25 AM, James Cook wrote: > >> [I don't really know what Agora's standard of scholarly worth is, but > >> I figure I might as well try. The title refers to this being a > >> hypothetical judgement about the fictional new past created by > >> ratification, which in itself is based on a hypothetical change to the > >> past when the gamestate is "minimally modified".] > >> > >> I submit the rest of this message as a thesis, and intend it to > >> qualify for a degree (whichever degree defined by Rule 1367 my peers > >> find appropriate). > >> > >> This is a hypothetical judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727, assuming D. > >> Margaux's attempt on 2019-05-26 22:50 to ratify a document without > >> objection was successful. I think it is interesting because it discusses > >> the question of whether when the Rules refer to the past, they are > >> referring to a fictional past that can be modified by ratification. > >> There are past (real) judgements that already consider this question, > >> but I don't think they go into as much detail as this one. > >> > >> CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent > >> attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective." > >> > >> CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has > >> more than 0 blots." > >> > >> 1. Arguments > >> ============ > >> > >> There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around > >> when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee] > >> Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019, and continuing on the thread > >> "Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727" in June 2019. I will not try to > >> repeat everything here. > >> > >> 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC) > >> ===================================== > >> > >> 2019-05-20 01:25 > >> > >> The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0 > >> blots. > >> > >> 2019-05-20 20:32 > >> > >> D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify > >> it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019": > >> > >> { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules” > >> have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177. > >> > >> Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the > >> Spaaace Rules has its default value. > >> > >> There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the > >> Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to > >> the Spaaace Rules. } > >> > >> 2019-05-21 10:20 > >> > >> D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following > >> weekly reports: > >> > >> {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the > >> recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All > >> switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default > >> value.} > >> > >> {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the > >> recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All > >> switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.} > >> > >> 2019-05-25 22:02 > >> > >> omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate > >> information in the above reports. > >> > >> 2019-05-25 22:54 > >> > >> D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir > >> behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger > >> pointed". > >> > >> 2019-05-26 22:43 > >> > >> Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of > >> Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message: > >> > >> > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in > >> the > >> > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the > >> good of > >> > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or > >> > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to > >> cause any > >> > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good > >> of the > >> > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances > >> though, > >> > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately > >> consider and > >> > discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules. > >> > > >> > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D. > >> > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The > >> required > >> > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize, > >> > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}. > >> > >> 2019-05-26 22:50 > >> > >> D. Margaux ratifies the document e earlier announced intent to ratify. > >> (This is fictional; in the actual judgement, I explain why this did > >> not succeed.) > >> > >> 2019-05-27 14:11 > >> > >> D. Margaux calls what is later named CFJ 3727. > >> > >> 2019-05-27 19:58 > >> > >> Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726. > >> > >> 3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification > >> ================================================== > >> > >> It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a fine would > >> have been effective if no ratifications had taken place. > >> > >> I believe that Aris's attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice > >> by levying a fine (2019-05-26 22:43 message) met the requirements of > >> Rule 2557, so it remains only to check that it does not run afoul of any > >> of the conditions in Rule 2531 ("Any attempt to levy a fine is > >> INEFFECTIVE if..."). > >> > >> Condition 1 of Rule 2531: > >> > >> The attempt in Aris's message included the value the fine (2 blots) and > >> the name of the person being fined (D. Margaux). The sentence performing > >> the action did not specify the specific reason for the fine (message is > >> copied earlier: "I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose..."). However, > >> Aris states the message earlier in the same message "...the information > >> in the report was inaccurate" which is part of eir attempt, so Condition > >> 1 does not trigger. > >> > >> Conditions 2 and 3 of Rule 2531: > >> > >> The officer reports were false at the time they were published. For > >> example, The Astronomor's 2019-03-05 weekly report states that many > >> players own Spaceships, and that part of the report has long since > >> self-ratified (under Rule 2166), but D. Margaux's report claims no > >> Spaceships exist. > >> > >> Therefore, ignoring the ratification of the more recent reports, > >> D. Margaux did commit a rule-breaking action, so these two conditions do > >> not apply. > >> > >> Conditions 4 through 8 are straightforward. > >> > >> Therefore, if D. Margaux's document and reports were never ratified, the > >> attempted imposition would have been EFFECTIVE, and D. Margaux would > >> have blots. > >> > >> 4. The timeline hypothesized by rule 1551 > >> ========================================= > >> > >> When D. Margaux ratified eir document on May 26, according to Rule 1551, > >> the gamestate was "modified to what it would be if, at the time the > >> ratified document was published, the gamestate had been minimally > >> modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate as > >> possible". > >> > >> (D. Margaux specified 2019-05-20 00:00 GMT as being the time the > >> document was true, but since the time was not part of the document > >> itself, it does trigger Rule 1551's clause "if the document explicitly > >> specifies a different past time...". In any case, I think the document > >> was published close enough to that time that the effect is the same.) > >> > >> To understand how Rule 1551 modified the gamestate, the first step is to > >> understand the minimal modification that is hypothetically applied at > >> the time the document was published. This minimal modification is clear: > >> all switches created directly by the Politics and Spaaace Rules are > >> modified to be at their default values, and all entities and switches > >> created by the Clork or Astronomor according to those respective Rules > >> are removed so that they do not exist in the minimally modified > >> gamestate. > >> > >> Having understood the hypothetical minimal modification, the next step > >> is to understand what would have happened from that point in time > >> onward. We end up with the following timeline: > >> > >> * D. Margaux publishes correct Astronomor and Clork reports. > >> * omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate > >> information in those reports. > >> * D. Margaux authorizes Aris to act on eir behalf for the investigation. > >> * Aris attempts to impose the Cold Hand of Justice, but the attempt is > >> INEFFECTIVE because D. Margaux did not violate the rules. > >> > >> In this hypothetical timeline, the appropriate judgement of CFJ 3726 > >> would be FALSE, since Aris's attempted imposition was INEFFECTIVE, and > >> the appropriate judgement of CFJ 3727 would be FALSE as well, since D. > >> Margaux did not gain any blots after the 2019-05-20 referee report, > >> which self-ratified before CFJ 3727 was called. > >> > >> 5. The gamestate after ratification > >> =================================== > >> > >> After D. Margaux ratified eir document, the gamestate was modified to > >> what it would be in the hypothetical timeline above. Our task now is to > >> determine how that modification affects the value of the two CFJs. > >> > >> I think it is clear that blot holdings are part of the gamestate. For > >> one thing, they only exist because the game defines em, and are part of > >> the state that we keep track of, so the terms "game" and "state" fit. > >> For another, blots are an asset tracked by some recordkeepor (the > >> Referee), and Rule 2166 states that the portion of a recordkeepor's > >> report that lists assets is self-ratifying, which wouldn't mean much if > >> such assets weren't part of the gamestate. Therefore at the end of this > >> message I would judge CFJ 3727 FALSE if this whole thing weren't > >> fictional. > >> > >> The harder question is whether the change to the gamestate affects CFJ > >> 3726. I believe it comes down to this question: > >> > >> Does the gamestate include information about past events, such as > >> whether the attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice was > >> effective, and is CFJ 3726 referring to the information contained in > >> the gamestate? > >> > >> If the answers are no, then CFJ 3726 should be judged TRUE, as argued in > >> Section 3 above. If the answers are yes, then CFJ 3726 should be judged > >> FALSE, according to the timeline described in Section 4. > >> > >> I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will > >> judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could > >> be doubt about this. > >> > >> 6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be TRUE > >> ================================================= > >> > >> When the rules talk about a concept that isn't defined by the rules, > >> we generally assume they're referring to the concept in reality. For > >> example, the rules don't define what a message is, and they don't define > >> the meaning of fundamental words like "is", "for", etc. > >> > >> Therefore it's natural to assume that when the rules discuss what "was", > >> they are referring to past events. I think it's defensible to assume > >> that even if the past event being referred to is a legal fiction, the > >> rules are referring to what the Rules had to say about the legal fiction > >> in the past, rather than some new legal fiction the Rules currently > >> define about the past. > >> > >> To instead say that whenever the Rules refer to the past, they are > >> referring to some fictitious past defined by the rules, could be said to > >> be a very drastic statement, requiring strong evidence to back it up. > >> > >> 7. The past is part of the gamestate > >> ==================================== > >> > >> However, I think sufficient evidence does exist to say the gamestate > >> contains information about past actions, and that the Rules refer to the > >> gamestate when they talk about the past. > >> > >> 7A. The text of the rules > >> ========================= > >> > >> To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to > >> look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must > >> satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context. > >> > >> It is not unusual to infer meanings of terms in this way. For example, the > >> rules never directly define what a CFJ is; e.g. you won't find text like "A > >> Call for Judgement is a ...", but nonetheless we are able to infer that > >> they > >> are associated with statements, can be judged, etc. I believe this is > >> supported by Rule 217's instruction to use common sense. > >> > >> In two places, the text of the Rules implies that the concept of > >> gamestate includes the past, by talking about the closely-related > >> concept of ratification: > >> > >> Rule 1551 says: > >> > >>> Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a > >>> report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification. > >> Rule 2034 says that certain messages constitute self-ratifying claims of > >> several facts about the past: "such a decision existed", "it had the > >> number of voters indicated", etc. > >> > >> In both cases, the rules talk about ratifying facts about the past. > >> Ratification involves a hypothetical gamestate minimally modified to > >> make these facts about the past true, which clarifies for us that the > >> definition of gamestate includes facts about the past. It also seems > >> likely that the new gamestate after the ratification is intended to > >> include these facts about the past, which is another way to arrive at > >> the same clarification. > >> > >> 7B. Past judgements about the past > >> ================================== > >> > >> Rule 217 instructs us that when the text of the rules is silent, > >> inconsistent or unclear, we should augment it with past judgements > >> (among other things). > >> > >> omd pointed out that the judgement CFJ 3337 [0] relied on > >> past events being part of the gamestate. Judge G.'s judgement of that CFJ > >> relied on the assertion that after a document stating the past date of a > >> player's registration was ratified, that player became eligible to vote > >> in a decision they otherwise would not have been eligible for, because > >> the text of the ratified document implied that they were registered at > >> the start of the voting period. > >> > >> The judgement of CFJ 2491 [1] also relied on the past being part of the > >> game state: Judge Yally's judgement was that since a document was > >> ratified implying that Rodlen became an officer sufficiently long ago > >> for em to be awarded a green ribbon, e should be awarded a green ribbon. > >> > >> Both of these judgements support the conclusion that the past is part of > >> the gamestate. > >> > >> 7C. The best interests of the game > >> ================================== > >> > >> Rule 217 also instructs us to consider the best interests of the game. > >> > >> Generally, the purpose of gamestate changes such as the effect of > >> ratification is to clarify the current situation in the game in order to > >> allow play to continue smoothly. Consider the following examples where > >> rules make actions possible or required depending on what happened in > >> the past: > >> > >> * Rule 2555: "If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any > >> blots from emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot > >> from emself by announcement." > >> > >> * Rule 2496: Whether a player can earn a reward depends on whether they > >> have fulfilled the condition in the past 7 days, and also on whether e > >> has already claimed that reward. > >> > >> * Many rules allow or require a player to take an action "in a timely > >> fashion" after a past event. > >> > >> When a ratification event clarifies the current situation in the game, > >> it would be helpful if the above examples are among the things that are > >> clarified. For example, after ratification of a document implying > >> whether or not a player has gained blots in the current week, that > >> player can confidently know whether they are able to expunge a blot. All > >> other things being equal, I think it is in the best interests of the > >> game if ratification clarifies these examples. > >> > >> (There may be best-interests-of-the-game arguments going the other way, > >> e.g. maybe it's easier to untangle some situations if ratification isn't > >> mucking around with the past. But 7A and 7B still apply.) > >> > >> We could at this point try to pick and choose just those elements of the > >> past are directly relevant: e.g. since D. Margaux didn't have any blots > >> to begin with, CFJ 3726 is not relevant to whether e can expunge any > >> blots, so CFJ 3726 may not matter to the best interests of the game. But > >> I think that would be overcomplicating things. If the gamestate includes > >> the effectiveness of some past actions, it is natural to assume it > >> includes the effectiveness of all of them. > >> > >> 8. It depends on what the meaning of the word "was" was > >> ======================================================= > >> > >> There's still a question of interpreting CFJ 3726 itself. I have > >> concluded that when the Rules refer to the effectiveness of past > >> actions, they are referring to information in the gamestate about the > >> past. But CFJ 3726 is not a rule. What does "was effective" mean in the > >> statement in CFJ 3726? > >> > >> Rule 591 has guidance on delivering judgements: > >> > >>> The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on > >>> the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was > >>> initiated, not taking into account any events since that time: > >>> > >>> * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and > >>> logically false > >>> > >>> * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and > >>> logically true > >> I believe "legal situation" means I should base my decision on what the > >> rules say. Moreover, the CFJ process is more useful if judgements on > >> statements agree with what the rules say about those statements. > >> > >> So, I will interpret "was effective" as referring to information about > >> the past contained in the gamestate. > >> > >> 9. Judgement > >> ============ > >> > >> I would judge CFJ 3726 FALSE if this weren't all hypothetical. > >> I would judge CFJ 3727 FALSE if this weren't all hypothetical. > >> > >> [0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3337 > >> [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2491 -- - Falsifian
